R v Holden [2014] NSWCCA 230

R v Holden [2014] NSWCCA 230

The evidence relied on by the applicant did not, either individually or cumulatively, compel the conclusion that he possessed the MDMA otherwise than for supply, and much of it depended on acceptance of his credibility. The trial judge was entitled to reject the applicant's uncontradicted explanation and to find...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction for Deemed Supply of a Prohibited Drug / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Conviction' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'deemed Supply of Prohibited Drug' 'possession of Traffickable Quantity' 'judge Alone Trial' 'burden of Proof']
['criminal Law'] ['appeal Against Conviction' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'deemed Supply of Prohibited Drug' 'possession of Traffickable Quantity' 'judge Alone Trial' 'burden of Proof']

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Conviction for Deemed Supply of a Prohibited Drug / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the verdict of the trial judge was unreasonable and could not be supported having regard to the evidence under s 6 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912.' 'Whether, on the whole of the evidence, it was open to the trial judge to be satisfied that the applicant had not proved on the balance of probabilities that he possessed the MDMA otherwise than for supply.']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence relied on by the applicant did not, either individually or cumulatively, compel the conclusion that he possessed the MDMA otherwise than for supply, and much of it depended on acceptance of his credibility. The trial judge was entitled to reject the applicant's uncontradicted explanation and to find that he had not discharged the onus imposed by s 29. On the whole of the evidence, the verdict was not unreasonable and the application for leave was wholly without merit.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal refused']